File photo a US Predator drone armed with a missile stands on the tarmac of Kandahar military airport in Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Massoud Hossaini, Pool, File)

(Newser)
–
Critics of the growing use of drone strikes by the Pentagon often point to civilian casualties as an argument against them. Sorry, writes William Saletan at Slate, but drones are far better than any other weapon of war at minimizing the deaths of innocents. What's more, they've gotten markedly better in just the last few years, with a precision that rivals laparoscopic surgery when compared with standard airstrikes. Drones, he writes, are "the worst form of warfare in the history of the world, except for all the others."

Consider that the highest estimate of civilian deaths caused by drones between 2010 and 2012 is 172. Against 1,616 total fatalities, that amounts to a civilian casualty rate of 12%. Go back and compare that percentage to previous wars, with rates of 70% (Korea) and higher. Saletan has reservations about drone strategy, including mission creep. "But civilian casualties? That’s not an argument against drones. It’s the best thing about them." Click for Saletan's full column.

Yeah, right! And we can spend our way out of debt, too! And Emperor obama is the greatest thing for America since sliced bread! Oh, and let's not forget all the guns running around randomly killing people!

logicaldood

Feb 21, 2013 3:38 AM CST

From the original Slate article - " Drones kill fewer civilians, as a percentage of total fatalities, than any other military weapon." That still does not make it OK in my book. I'm sure any collateral survivors or relatives of the innocent would not think it is OK too.

logicaldood

Feb 21, 2013 3:32 AM CST

What a bunch of crap. When someone start telling lies, after a while they start to think that is the actual truth. The government assumes it is OK that people die over there than over here. When is it OK to kill innocent civilians anywhere?